Assessing the functional coherence of modules found in multiple-evidence networks from Arabidopsis

BackgroundCombining multiple evidence-types from different information sources has the potential to reveal new relationships in biological systems. The integrated information can be represented as a relationship network, and clustering the network can suggest possible functional modules. The value of such modules for gaining insight into the underlying biological processes depends on their functional coherence. The challenges that we wish to address are to define and quantify the functional coherence of modules in relationship networks, so that they can be used to infer function of as yet unannotated proteins, to discover previously unknown roles of proteins in diseases as well as for better understanding of the regulation and interrelationship between different elements of complex biological systems.ResultsWe have defined the functional coherence of modules with respect to the Gene Ontology (GO) by considering two complementary aspects: (i) the fragmentation of the GO functional categories into the different modules and (ii) the most representative functions of the modules. We have proposed a set of metrics to evaluate these two aspects and demonstrated their utility in Arabidopsis thaliana. We selected 2355 proteins for which experimentally established protein-protein interaction (PPI) data were available. From these we have constructed five relationship networks, four based on single types of data: PPI, co-expression, co-occurrence of protein names in scientific literature abstracts and sequence similarity and a fifth one combining these four evidence types. The ability of these networks to suggest biologically meaningful grouping of proteins was explored by applying Markov clustering and then by measuring the functional coherence of the clusters.ConclusionsRelationship networks integrating multiple evidence-types are biologically informative and allow more proteins to be assigned to a putative functional module. Using additional evidence types concentrates the functional annotations in a smaller number of modules without unduly compromising their consistency. These results indicate that integration of more data sources improves the ability to uncover functional association between proteins, both by allowing more proteins to be linked and producing a network where modular structure more closely reflects the hierarchy in the gene ontology.

[1]  Ananth Grama,et al.  Functional characterization and topological modularity of molecular interaction networks , 2010, BMC Bioinformatics.

[2]  Olga G. Troyanskaya,et al.  BIOINFORMATICS ORIGINAL PAPER doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btm332 Data and text mining , 2022 .

[3]  Gary D. Bader,et al.  An automated method for finding molecular complexes in large protein interaction networks , 2003, BMC Bioinformatics.

[4]  Julie A. Dickerson,et al.  Arabidopsis gene co-expression network and its functional modules , 2009, BMC Bioinformatics.

[5]  Purvesh Khatri,et al.  Ontological analysis of gene expression data: current tools, limitations, and open problems , 2005, Bioinform..

[6]  Rachael P. Huntley,et al.  The GOA database in 2009—an integrated Gene Ontology Annotation resource , 2008, Nucleic Acids Res..

[7]  Xinghua Lu,et al.  Assessing the functional coherence of gene sets with metrics based on the Gene Ontology graph , 2010, Bioinform..

[8]  C E Shannon,et al.  The mathematical theory of communication. 1963. , 1997, M.D. computing : computers in medical practice.

[9]  María Martín,et al.  The Universal Protein Resource (UniProt) in 2010 , 2010 .

[10]  Marcelo M. Brandão,et al.  AtPIN: Arabidopsis thaliana Protein Interaction Network , 2009, BMC Bioinformatics.

[11]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  Improved scoring of functional groups from gene expression data by decorrelating GO graph structure , 2006, Bioinform..

[12]  Mark Gerstein,et al.  Total ancestry measure: quantifying the similarity in tree-like classification, with genomic applications , 2007, Bioinform..

[13]  Peng Jiang,et al.  SPICi: a fast clustering algorithm for large biological networks , 2010, Bioinform..

[14]  Catia Pesquita,et al.  Metrics for GO based protein semantic similarity: a systematic evaluation , 2008, BMC Bioinformatics.

[15]  Rafael C. Jimenez,et al.  The IntAct molecular interaction database in 2012 , 2011, Nucleic Acids Res..

[16]  E. Marcotte,et al.  Rational association of genes with traits using a genome-scale gene network for Arabidopsis thaliana , 2010, Nature Biotechnology.

[17]  Matthew A. Hibbs,et al.  Discovery of biological networks from diverse functional genomic data , 2005, Genome Biology.

[18]  U. Alon.  Biological Networks: The Tinkerer as an Engineer , 2003, Science.

[19]  Christopher J. Rawlings,et al.  Enhancing Data Integration with Text Analysis to Find Proteins Implicated in Plant Stress Response , 2010, J. Integr. Bioinform..

[20]  Tobias Müller,et al.  Identifying functional modules in protein–protein interaction networks: an integrated exact approach , 2008, ISMB.

[21]  Lawrence Hunter,et al.  Improving protein function prediction methods with integrated literature data , 2008, BMC Bioinformatics.

[22]  Christopher J. Rawlings,et al.  Data integration for plant genomics - exemplars from the integration of Arabidopsis thaliana databases , 2009, Briefings Bioinform..

[23]  Kengo Kinoshita,et al.  ATTED-II provides coexpressed gene networks for Arabidopsis , 2008, Nucleic Acids Res..

[24]  Limsoon Wong,et al.  Exploiting Indirect Neighbours and Topological Weight to Predict Protein Function from Protein-Protein Interactions , 2006, BioDM.

[25]  Ananth Grama,et al.  Functional coherence in domain interaction networks , 2008, ECCB.

[26]  D. Bu,et al.  Topological structure analysis of the protein-protein interaction network in budding yeast. , 2003, Nucleic acids research.

[27]  J. Rothberg,et al.  Gaining confidence in high-throughput protein interaction networks , 2004, Nature Biotechnology.

[28]  Haiyuan Yu,et al.  Developing a similarity measure in biological function space , 2007 .

[29]  Sang Joon Kim,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Communication , 2006 .

[30]  Shigehiko Kanaya,et al.  Development and implementation of an algorithm for detection of protein complexes in large interaction networks , 2006, BMC Bioinformatics.

[31]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  On Spectral Clustering: Analysis and an algorithm , 2001, NIPS.

[32]  Luay Nakhleh,et al.  GS2: an efficiently computable measure of GO-based similarity of gene sets , 2009, Bioinform..

[33]  A. V. Lisitsa,et al.  Construction of protein semantic networks using PubMed/MEDLINE , 2010, Molecular Biology.

[34]  Eve Syrkin Wurtele,et al.  Regulon organization of Arabidopsis , 2008, BMC Plant Biology.

[35]  Gary D Bader,et al.  Global Mapping of the Yeast Genetic Interaction Network , 2004, Science.

[36]  Carole A. Goble,et al.  Investigating Semantic Similarity Measures Across the Gene Ontology: The Relationship Between Sequence and Annotation , 2003, Bioinform..

[37]  BMC Bioinformatics , 2005 .

[38]  Christopher J. Rawlings,et al.  Graph-based analysis and visualization of experimental results with ONDEX , 2006, Bioinform..

[39]  Xinghua Lu,et al.  Novel metrics for evaluating the functional coherence of protein groups via protein semantic network , 2007, Genome Biology.

[40]  A. Loraine,et al.  Transcriptional Coordination of the Metabolic Network in Arabidopsis1[W][OA] , 2006, Plant Physiology.

[41]  José María Carazo,et al.  Assessment of protein set coherence using functional annotations , 2008, BMC Bioinformatics.

[42]  Elon Portugaly,et al.  Efficient algorithms for accurate hierarchical clustering of huge datasets: tackling the entire protein space , 2008, ISMB.

[43]  The Arabidopsis Genome Initiative.  Analysis of the genome sequence of the flowering plant Arabidopsis thaliana , 2000, Nature.

[44]  Lan V. Zhang,et al.  Evidence for dynamically organized modularity in the yeast protein–protein interaction network , 2004, Nature.

[45]  Yan Zhou,et al.  Improving detection of differentially expressed gene sets by applying cluster enrichment analysis to Gene Ontology , 2009, BMC Bioinformatics.

[46]  T. Barrette,et al.  Probabilistic model of the human protein-protein interaction network , 2005, Nature Biotechnology.

[47]  Shoshana J. Wodak,et al.  Markov clustering versus affinity propagation for the partitioning of protein interaction graphs , 2009, BMC Bioinformatics.

[48]  C. E. SHANNON,et al.  A mathematical theory of communication , 1948, MOCO.

[49]  Kengo Kinoshita,et al.  ATTED-II: a database of co-expressed genes and cis elements for identifying co-regulated gene groups in Arabidopsis , 2006, Nucleic Acids Res..

[50]  Hao Chen,et al.  Content-rich biological network constructed by mining PubMed abstracts , 2004, BMC Bioinformatics.

[51]  Benno Schwikowski,et al.  Graph-based methods for analysing networks in cell biology , 2006, Briefings Bioinform..

[52]  M. Ashburner,et al.  Gene Ontology: tool for the unification of biology , 2000, Nature Genetics.

[53]  Christian von Mering,et al.  STRING 8—a global view on proteins and their functional interactions in 630 organisms , 2008, Nucleic Acids Res..

[54]  John H. Morris,et al.  Improving the quality of protein similarity network clustering algorithms using the network edge weight distribution , 2011, Bioinform..

[55]  Aric Hagberg,et al.  Exploring Network Structure, Dynamics, and Function using NetworkX , 2008, Proceedings of the Python in Science Conference.

[56]  Sven Rahmann,et al.  Large scale clustering of protein sequences with FORCE -A layout based heuristic for weighted cluster editing , 2007, BMC Bioinformatics.

[57]  Baris E. Suzek,et al.  The Universal Protein Resource (UniProt) in 2010 , 2009, Nucleic Acids Res..

[58]  Jason Weston,et al.  Protein ranking: from local to global structure in the protein similarity network. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[59]  Ron Shamir,et al.  Identification of functional modules using network topology and high-throughput data , 2007, BMC Systems Biology.

[60]  Quaid Morris,et al.  Fast integration of heterogeneous data sources for predicting gene function with limited annotation , 2010, Bioinform..

[61]  Limsoon Wong,et al.  Constructing More Reliable Protein-Protein Interaction Maps , 2007 .

[62]  T. Ideker,et al.  Network-based classification of breast cancer metastasis , 2007, Molecular systems biology.

[63]  Guimei Liu,et al.  Complex discovery from weighted PPI networks , 2009, Bioinform..

[64]  Arun K. Ramani,et al.  Protein interaction networks from yeast to human. , 2004, Current opinion in structural biology.

[65]  Jacques van Helden,et al.  Evaluation of clustering algorithms for protein-protein interaction networks , 2006, BMC Bioinformatics.

[66]  Philip S. Yu,et al.  A new method to measure the semantic similarity of GO terms , 2007, Bioinform..

[67]  S. Dongen.  A cluster algorithm for graphs , 2000 .

[68]  Ting Chen,et al.  Assessment of the reliability of protein-protein interactions and protein function prediction , 2002, Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing.

[69]  Cliff Joslyn,et al.  The Gene Ontology Categorizer , 2004, ISMB/ECCB.